Talk:Sachin Tendulkar

Editing

This page could do with a bit of editing I think. It's not very encylopaedic (referring to Tendulkar by his given name throughout, for example), has a lot of repetition of information and some conflicting information. I'll have a stab at tightening it up myself, but if someone else wants to go ahead and do it first then that would be cool! --Lancevortex 11:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

SACHIN IN FINAL MATCHES

Many people hold the opinion against Sachin that he does not perform well in Final Matches.Let me present some statistics regarding his performance in Finals :

M - 47 Runs - 1954 HS - 141 Avge. - 46.52 Centuries - 5 Half-Centuries - 11 Wickets - 30 Best - 4/38 bowling. Avge. - 34.83

What else does he need to prove ????

Besides, even if we accept this that he fails in Final Matches for a moment then let us recall who is the person who leads our Team to final......

--

 Hedonistic Vny

Stats as on 16th September 2006

Ramesh or Romesh

I think his middle name is Romesh and not Ramesh. Please confirm even though it is given as Ramesh in Cricinfo Doctor Bruno 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ramesh should be the spelling as he hails from Maharashtra - it is the most widely used spelling for the word in India. The spelling Romesh would be used by people in Bengal. --Gurubrahma 17:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The Name is Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar. His father's name is Ramesh Tendulkar. He hails from Maharashtra, where the name is Ramesh and not Romesh.

Family Life

Why was the following line removed. It was a love marriage, despite his wife being a few years older than Sachin. What is wrong in telling that it is a love marriage and also his wife's age Doctor Bruno 06:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I might have been the one that removed it. I thought it was unnecessary and a pov - "despite his wife being older than him". That makes it appear as if it is wrong for a man to marry someone older than him. And most marriages do happen when the couple involved are in love - or so I think... Cribananda 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we use different words and convey the meaning Doctor Bruno 06:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Now it already says he married his childhood friend. If you want to add that she is a few years older than him, that's fine (will be better if you know exactly how many). Go ahead. - Cribananda 06:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Achievements

Since Man of the Series is a notable achievement (only one player per world cup), that has been added in the Achievement Doctor Bruno 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Biased opening paragraph

The opening para is again not informative but casting aspersions on Tendulkar. It is wrong to make biased judgements like mumbai players being favoured under Tendulkar's captaincy with no proof. The statement about Tendulkar not winning matches for India is another example of skewed statistical analysis.

        RazumihinThe opening paragraph needs to clearly state that he is at least one of the greatest batsman of all-time to    
           differentiate him from ordinary players. When his career is done he is definitely going to be regarded as the greatest 
           batsman of his time, so the article MUST state that clearly

Eulogical Opening Paragraph

I think the opening para is heavily biased, hardly encyclopedic and not informative. All this glorification should probably go to the end. Couple of highlights or records he holds might not be out of place. Changed it to sound better. - Cribananda -J

Much better, thank you. Stephen Turner 10:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The article about Sachin Tendulkar

I thought that the article was excellent, I'm a huge fan of Sachin and there isn't much I don't know about him, however this article I found to be very informative and laid out very well. The best thing of all was of how recent it is, many of these sites 'dedicated' to him are rarley kept current. Very good! I have added his 241 not out in Sydney to the list of important test innings, but there should be some sort of discussion provided in the article; I'm too tired to do it right now. I would also like to add on his recent 194 n.o. vs Pakistan at Pakistan where innings was declared before his double century and there were lot of cries against it. Then only few months ago Sachin was suffering from tennis elbow which almost brought his career to an end.

Captaincy

I changed 'Saurav Ganguly' to Sourav Ganguly, I'm not even sure why so many people insist on spelling it 'Saurav', but they might be the same group who insist on spelling on Sehwag as Shewag. I'm not sure if there are different interpretations in terms of name spelling within India, since I'm not Indian, but cricinfo uses Sourav so I would assume that is the official spelling of the name.

Post Surgery

Dwells mainly on the past and doesnt deal with Tendulkar's match winning potential vis-a-vis his record breaking one This article on Tendulkar dwells mainly on Tendulkar's past performances and doesn't have much about his performances post surgery. Tendulkar these days is a mere shadow of his own self from past days. He seems to have gone into a defensive mode and lost his flamboyance these days. Perhaps Tendulkar can take a cue from West Indian batsman Brian Lara and concentrate more on Tests than on one dayers and leave the slot for deserving youngsters. He also tried his hands at captaincy albeit for two breif periods. He was not quite successfull with the captaincy but during his tenure talentless players from mumbai like Abey Kuruvilla, Nilesh Kulkarni Sairaj Bahutule and Vinod Kambli got an extended run in the Indian team. He finally gave up the captaincy after repeated failures to concentrate on his batting. Though Tendulkar has a lot of records to his name it still remains a fact that not many of his high scores barring a few have helped India win those games. His distractors have often pointed out that he is unable to score in crunch situations and can't handle pressure, a theory that remains debatable. Having said all these there is no denying the fact that he is one of the greatest batsmen of all times, however how he fits into the schema of todays Indian team and contributes to the Team cause is yet to be seen.

Sachin talks with his bat

Answers for the previous post

Post Surgery

• He led the team to victory in the first two one dayers and the second test at Delhi. See what happened as soon as Sachin got out in the first innings. It was Kumble who "bowled" the team to victory, but it was Sachin who batted the team to victory

Score in Crunch Situation

What is a Cruch Situation, mate...... For Example, if India had lost the game against Pakistan in World Cup 2003, that would have been the crunch game. If India had lost in the super six, that would be the crunch. If India lost in the Semi Finals, that would have become the crunch game. Just because SACHIN WON ALL THE games, they did not become the crunch game and when he lost, that becomes a crunch game.

India Winning Games.

• India won a test in England in 2002. Who was the top scorer
• India won a test in Multan in 2002. Sachin scored 194
• India won a test in Dhaka in 2004. Who was the top scorer

He is the God of the cricket

Again the problem is you do not count the games he has won, but you just count the games India has lost

Doctor Bruno 02:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Tendulkar has been performing consistently, even if not as good as he has done before, but he's there, and he's coming back. There is no reason why the page should not attribute to his reat feats. This is like telling Einstein didn't find any new theory in the last years of his life. Go see the Einstein article, it will tell you all about how great he was, even though he didnt achieve much post.E=mc^2. Arjunm 15:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to cricinfo

I have linked Sachin's 90 to the cricinfo scorecard...will do for the others later... Cheers, KalluMama

I think, instead of linking to cricinfo, we should develop a template for cricket-players' statistics. Painful task, but great. utcursch 11:53, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions for edit :

>> # To go with this he has more than eight thousand runs in Test cricket and 34 hundreds, at an average of 57. An average above 50 distinguishes a batsman as an all time great.

Out of date and doesn't look elegant. May be deleted.

>> Only the last of the innings listed above led to an Indian victory abroad.

Incorrect. There are three among the Tests (193, 194*, 248*) and quite a few among the ODI innings listed. Tintin January 22, 2005

Sachin's form

This is to whoever put up that last paragraph in the article... What u say is true, Sachin is going through a bit of a rough patch. But it's not really that bad (this refers especially to the 'sheer failure' term). He still maintains a healthy average, and, more importantly, he still bats for India and not for himself, though he's the most senior member in the team. He may not be the flashy batsman that he was a few years ago, but there's no arguing that he is still the batsman everybody would want on their team. He stays in the team not only because of his ability (or his past performances as the critics would say...) but also because he's a valuable asset to the team. And even if he continues to bat badly (which is unlikely considering his resolve), he will not go into an ordinary retirement... Because he's not only a hero... he's a proven fighter. Fighters are never forgotten.Jam2k 13:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Doctorbruno's latest edits

I think the article's balance has shifted from one end to the other in the POV scales - someone may want to review it. --Gurubrahma 17:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC) All my edits are supported with references from Wisden or Cricinfo (a part of Wisden). Nothing is my personal opinion. I have just told "Sachin scored runs" when he had scored runsDoctor Bruno 18:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gurubrahma. Your selection of facts and your emotive language are both far from neutral, both in this article and even more so in Rahul Dravid. I'm sorry to criticise you, but I think it's true. Citing sources is good, but it doesn't automatically ensure neutral point of view. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

But was not the selection of facts and language from from neutral (on the other end) before it was edited by me. About the Dravid Article, the words are NOT mine. They are from reputed cricket writers (from leading newspapers and also from Cricinfo, the site associated with Wisden). If Wisden is considered as a reliable source when it criticises Sachin, why not wisden be a reliable source when it praises sachin and criticises DravidDoctor Bruno 14:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was in no way trying to defend the article before your contribution. I think it was poor. In fact, I think almost every Indian and Pakistani cricketer suffers from NPOV problems. It seems impossible for people to write objectively about them.

Quoting professional writers on one side of the argument or the other is certainly better than just writing your own opinions, but it emphatically does not make an article NPOV.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't consider it as an argument. It is just a fact that Mr.X scored Runs. It is also a fact that Mr.X got wickets. What is the NPOV problem here. I do not understand. Please don't ask me to read the NPOV pages. What is the problem with this page. Just tell the lines which you find gives to this NPOV problem. Please point out and we can correct that. Doctor Bruno 17:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Golden Arm

The sentence I most objected to was "He is reckoned as the man with the Golden arm who breaks partnerships". Even if some people have said that, I don't believe it's a universally held view, although the article talks as if it is.

However, NPOV is more subtle than you think. It's not primarily about specific sentences that are not accurate. Even if every sentence in an article is true and verifiable and properly sourced, an article can still have NPOV problems, by the selection of some facts and the omission of others, by failing to represent all legitimate points of view.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Man with a golden arm" is a description. When he has broken more than one partnership, any bowler can be called with that term. I don't think that it is a NPOV problem. If the sentence had been "he is a bowler who always breaks partnership" that is a different story. If there is atleast ONE Source which say that "Sachin is not a man with a golden arm" we can bring a NPOV issue over here. At present it is a fact.

I found that the player's achievements were not recorded and only failures recorded and hence corrected it. OK... tell us what points are omitted and what are selected, which you feel gives rise to a NPOV issue. Let us discuss and edit accordingly. Doctor Bruno 17:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. "Man with a golden arm" is a description. But it is a description which violates NPOV. Consider a situation in which a complete stranger to the game views this page. The impression he will get upon reading this particular statement will be that Tendulkar is a great bowler. The fact that he is a part-time bowler will completely evade him. To prevent that statements like that are avoided. NPOV is basically adhered to because of such instances.

Hope that clears it up

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 18:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Golden Arm Explained

Sorry for being inquistive. THe description "with golden arm" is usually applied to "part time bowlers" who get wickets of well settled batsmen. The term is not used for the regular bowlers. You can read the old literature and will find that Srilanka's man with golden arm was De Silva (and Not Vaas or Murali) and Australians used that term for Mark Waugh (and not McGrath and Warne) and Mike Clarke [1](he has so far taken 8 wickets in 20 matches) and in Windies it will be Viv Richards and not Walsh. Hence this is just a FACT. Only if we tell that "Mr.Tendulkar is a bowler who breaks partnerships as soon as he is called to bowl" that will be not be a Neutral Point of View. You cannot ordinarily write this term (golden arm) on the article of Murali or Warne or Walsh. They are bowlers who can get any batsman out. I am sure that now the confusion is cleared.

Please read the line I have given "Inspite of his bowling average....." IF someone gets an impression that a person with just 37 wickets in 132 matches (that is one wicket every 8 innings) with a bowling average of over 40 "is a great bowler", it is the fault of the reader. If the term golden arm had been in the first stanza of the article without the other details (which very well tell that the person described is a part time bowler), that can cause some confusion. But in the present scenario, it is just a fact and has no NPOV problems. Doctor Bruno 20:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the contentious line from the achievement list and moved it into the description part, with added remarks. I presume that the NPOV issue is settled (for this point) Doctor Bruno 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I still object to it. It implies that he is particularly good at breaking stubborn partnerships, better than other part-time bowlers at least. Do you have any statistics to support that assertion? Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. With due respects to you, that he is particularly good at breaking stubborn partnerships, better than other part-time bowlers' is probably your point of view. As I have mentioned, He has more wickets than Michael Clarke (for example). As I have told repeatedly, this is a phrase used for part time bowlers. By the way, how do you say that the present phrase objectively implies better than other part-time bowlersDoctor Bruno 03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No Stephen is saying that this is what you are implying. He has more wickets than Michael Clarke - this would imply that Ajit Agarkar or Ashish Nehra is a golden arm. You need to verify that he has a higher rate of taking wickets that break 100, 200+ partnerships than other bowlers.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sachin tendulkar does not have a higher rate of taking wickets that break partnerships when you compare him with Muralitharan or Agarkar who are bowlers. If he has something like that, he will be termed as an allrounder and not a batsman with a golden arm. Is that clear. The NPOV issue arises only if we say that Sachin is a genuine test bowler or an allrounder (then only we can compare him with Courtney Walsh or Imran Khan. The term "golden arm" is not limited to ONLY ONE PLAYER (that is the person with maximum wickets or minimum average etc). It is a much general term

I think that the real problem is not with Sachin. The problem seems to be that many people do not know the term golden arm. Doctor Bruno 13:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The only bowler with whom I have heard the term associated with some amount of regularity is Mudassar Nazar. Tintin (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Of late it is also used with many batsmen, who are not regular bowlers, but get wickets. For eg Clarke (he has played in 20 matches, but got wickets in ONLY one match and was immediately called with this term) Doctor Bruno 13:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We need facts here. Can you produce any statistics that show he deserves the description "golden arm"? Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the description "golden arm" is not a rigid description that can be "proved" with statistics. As I have repeatedly told you, there is no "criteria" that exists to tell a player as "someone with a golden arm". The term is used for batsman who occasionally bowl and break partnerships. THis is the most I can explain. Other facts (including citations) have been already given by me. I guess that you are not a clear idea about the term.

Let me come to your way. Sachin is called as the man with the golden arm by a lot of cricket magazines and this is a FACT. What other facts do you need to term, say Clarke as the one with the golden arm. Are you telling me that there is a criteria to call some one with the description. I am new to Wikipedia, but I think that one of the policies is that we have to report facts (as given in reputed sources) and NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH (as to the criteria behind the term). Please enlighten me and correct my mistakes, if any Doctor Bruno 12:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand it to mean someone who is particularly good at breaking stubborn partnerships. We need some evidence that this is the case. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not exactly mean "someone who is particularly good" . It means that a batsman, who is not a regular bowler, occasionally breaks partnership. Sachin is definitely inferior to Kapil and Kumble at breaking partnership. That is a fact. But Kapil and Kumble are not called with the term because Kapil is an allrounder and Kumble a bowler. On the other hand, Sachin is better than Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman, Sadagopan Ramesh, Kambli, Gavaskar etc at breaking partnership, and that is the reason cricket wrtiers (not me and you) have given this term to him. The same is true about Clarke, who is an inferior bowler compared to McGrath and Warne. Yet Warne and McGrath are not called as men with golden arm, because they are bowlers. On the other hand Clarke is better than, (for example) Hayden and Ponting and hence called with the term. Is this clear. Please understand the difference between someone (as you say) and batsman, the reality. I guess I have given enough citations and explanations regarding this. Doctor Bruno 18:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it's for occasional bowlers, but it still refers to someone who is better than other occasional bowlers at breaking stubborn partnerships, otherwise every occasional bowler could be given this title. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to terms. Please understand that the title is NOT restricted to ONLY ONE BOWLER in the entire cricketing world. As you have rightly told

still refers to someone who is better than other occasional bowlers at breaking stubborn partnerships, otherwise every occasional bowler could be given this title.

Please see my reply above. I have already given the answer for this question. This term is not used for Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman etc. Sachin is a better bowlers than other part time bowlers in the same way Clarke is better than other part time bowlers. Sachin and Clarke are NOT better than Kapil and McGrath. That is why they are being called with these terms. Every occasional bowler CANNOT be given this title. They have the title of "occasionall bowler". That is for them. If they break partnership, better than other "occasional bowlers" they can also be referd with the term.

Right now, there is no rigid criteria to call a batsman with this term i.e. You can call Mr.X as some on e with a godlen arm only if he taks 50 wickets, or only if his average is below 20 runs etcDoctor Bruno 19:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said there was only one, and I never said there was a defined criterion. But you still haven't given any evidence to show that he deserves the title. Is he better at breaking partnerships than most other bowlers who bowl a similar number of overs per match as him? We need evidence. We need some sort of numbers. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You yourself accept (at last) that there is no defined criteria. Then why are you asking for an evidence. How can we give evidence, when there is NO CRITERIA. Please explain. Doctor Bruno 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

One direction to look into was an article I saw a few days back (either during India's tour of Pakistan, or just after). It showed the number of top-order batsmen that have been dismissed by Tendulkar. I think the bowler who's Inzamam Ul Haq was the most is Tendulkar. Brian Lara also seemed to be in the list. Maybe that could be a criteria - number of times top-order batsmen have been dismissed by a part-timer, or the percentage of top-order batsmen dismissed by him? If you guys have the time, and the necessary googling skills, you could try searching for the original article.Cricket Crazy 08:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Is he better at breaking partnerships than most other bowlers who bowl a similar number of overs per match as him?..... He is perhaps equal to all those are called by the term "golden arm"......

No Original Research

A question to every one. Sachin, Clarke and few other batsman have been called as the persons with Golden Arm by leading cricketing writers. As per the policy of Wikipedia, why can't we just reporduce it after the customary VERIFIABILITY. Why are we trying for ORIGINAL RESEARCH as to whether he has taken this much wickets etc..... Is ORIGINAL RESEARCH or NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH the policy of Wikipedia. Doctor Bruno 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Can some one tell me why this was removed Though his bowling averages are above 50, he is reckoned as the man with the Golden arm who breaks partnerships. [2] [3] [4]

When there are NO JUSTIFIABLE Explanations to the above question, why can't the term be again added Doctor Bruno 03:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But as much as we explain it, the term golden arm is a term that upsets the POV balance. And as I have said above [5] when this term appears before a stranger to the game, regardless of all your arguments, it is going to appear as though he is a great bowler; which undoubtedly is misleading & thus disrupts NPOV. And I think that if one term is causing such dispute, I think it will be better if it is not included.

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 05:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I find this a very hollow argument. WHy can't you apply this same "strager criteria" to the third test at Mumbai, where you given only the first innings picture and ignore the second innings. Inspite of Sachinahving top socred in the second innings, IT MAY APPEAR TO A STRANGER as if he is a poor batsman who scores only one run per match.

The same with the 2001 series, where it is given that Rahul and Laxman only scored. WHy don't the NPOV issues go there. Why can't you remove the remark for Rahul also. Why are you removing Achiements, and keeping the failures only. Please explain Doctor Bruno 13:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Mumbai test, the score in the first innings is important as it was the first time Sachin was booed off the ground & that too by his home crowd. This will most definitely not show that he his a poor batsman as the rest of the article clearly points out that he is one of the best batsmen in cricket. The introduction of the article points this out that he is "...acknowledged as one of the best batsmen of the modern era." But when a batsman is not a great bowler we do not write that he is bad. So if you add the golden arm part it will show as though he is a great bowler. And I have removed the edits of the 2001 series as they are not relevant to the article.

Hope that clears it up

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 13:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(P.S Please look over your posts as they have many typos & are a bit difficult to understand. Thanks)

In my opinion, as long as you mention that he was booed off by a section of the crowd in the first innings for a poor innings, you should also mention that he was cheered to the crease in the second innings and also top-scored for the side. Cricket Crazy 10:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is also my opinion Doctor Bruno 13:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

More about the Golden Arm

There is no doubt that Various reputed cricket writers have called Sachin as the man with the Golden Arm. This is an accepted fact and can be verified and is also from reputed sources.

Now I see an objection to adding the term in this page. The objection says that "a person who does not know may mis understand". I find that this argument is very shallow. For example, when you mention that Imran Khan is an allrounder, a person who is new to cricket may think used to run round the ground. Similarly, a person who is new to cricket may think that Fine leg means Aiswarya Rai.

Rejecting a well known and well established fact with a hypothetical theory that a newbie may misunderstand seems very awkward to me. (If you go like this, then when you say caught at mid wicket, some one new to cricket may think that the batsman was caught between the stumps and hence mid wicket violates NPOV etc etc .)

An encyclopedia should report terms and facts as it is used and should not avoid giving credit to a person in a hypothetical imaginary fear that some one who does not know may misunderstand.

Sorry for the sarcastic post Doctor Bruno 13:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have mentioned in my previous post, this article has plenty of statements that show that tendulkar is a great batsman, but no description of him as a bowler. Adding the term "golden arm" will insinuate that he is an exceptional bowler. Unless you can elaborate about his bowling this statement will be out of place. And terms you have mentioned like "allrounder" & "fine leg" are official cricketing terms which have specified definitions & can be looked up whereas golden arm is an unofficial description based on the opinion of commentators & cricket analysts. Anyway I feel that this argument can continue forever & you seem very determined to add this controversial term to the article. So you may do as you please. I'm very tired of this argument as it is keeping me from making contributions to Wikipedia & I do not want to take any further part in it .

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am just highlighting a point that a well established fact with verifiability should not be deleted jsut because a "newbie may misunderstand this". Doctor Bruno 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Tell about the other issues and we can sort one by one Doctor Bruno 20:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have patience to read WP:NPOV and understand the policies of Wikipedia as you state above, is it fair for you to expect us to engage in discussion with you on each of the points? --Gurubrahma 07:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not tell that I do not have the patience. I just want you to indicate the exact sentence, which is not NPOV so that it can be corrected. And not merely tell that this article has NPOV issues. I am sorry, if my words confused you Doctor Bruno 13:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be easier and better if someone copyedits it once to lessen the POV, rather than point it one by one. Tintin (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Before some one tries to "lessen the POV", let us identify the POVDoctor Bruno 13:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Miss Tendulkar

It's said that Sachin named his daughter Sara after the Sahara Cup victory over Pakistan in Toronto, one of his firsts after becoming the captain of the Indian cricket team. - Need a reference for this line. I have heard other explanations - like it was from SAchin and RAni (Anjali Tendulkar's nickname) and so on. Tintin (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recent edits to criticism & recent performance by Doctor Bruno are off NPOV & unnecessary. Adding statements like "...and there by dismissing the myth that Sachin plays in the initial matches and not in the deciding matches in a series." are not only uncited but also tilt the NPOV balance. Also the edit about being the second innings high scorer in the recent India vs England test is unnecessary.

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the myth part.

But can you explain why it is wrong to tell that the player was the top scorer in the second innings, when it as already given that the player scored one run in the first innings. When you give only the first innings part, a first time reader may wrongly assume that the batsman played no part at all in the match. That disrupts the neutrality. When you give both innings, it has a neutral imageDoctor Bruno 02:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think the 1 run thing there is necessary- ducks, 1, 2, etc are a natural part of cricket. It seems negative, but I tried to tone it down a bit, but because it is claimed that this was the first time Tendulkar got booed off, it may be notable in the sense of the crowd but not his form slump. To be honest, cricket matches occur each week, and because this is an encyclopedia, not a news/magazine, I think we should not micro-analyze every new test match and try to crystal-ball who is on the rise/decline every week depending on if they have a bad Test or suddenly a good one. There was a similar thing about Harbhajan Singh being in a form slump for the last 5 games, and it got deleted. I don't think there have been enough "defining" moments such as in the Sourav Ganguly saga, but even in that case, we restricted ourselves to noting the sequence
  • Argument with Chappell and email affair and the "peace treaty"
  • Gets injured and axed from ODI team
  • Ignored upon regaining fitness
  • In Test team, then dropped for Yuvraj Singh
  • Gautam Gambhir and Mohammad Kaif dropped to bring back Ganguly
  • Dropped again for Kaif, Wasim Jaffer
• Our only speculation is restricted to comments made by chairman of selectors, Kiran More. Probably not too much short-term analysis should be used unless we quote the coach or selectors, who have a say in selection and policy, rather than pundits, who change their minds frequently, and do not have a say in the policies.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

2001 Australia Series

In the discussion about the 2001 Australia Series, it is given that Sachin did not do anything in the secodn test while Dravid, Laxman and Harbhajan did.

What is wrong in mentioning that Sachin was TE ONLY Player to score a century in the third test.

Can some one tell why that has been edited.

When you say that Mr.X did not do in the second test and Mr.Y did, what is wrong in telling that Mr.X did in the third test and Mr.Y did not do there.

Can any one give a justifiable reason for not including the word "only player"... Doctor Bruno 03:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the greatest of all time

Tendulkar is not just one of the "best batsmen of the modern era". He is generally acknowldged as one of the greatest of all time. I have made this correction in the opening paragraph. Cricket Crazy 09:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed by me to include a citation. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

spin on batting ranking

The use of acknowledged in "acknowledged by Wisden in 2002 as being the second greatest Test batsman ever" makes a subjective statement sound proven and indisputably true.--Harold holt 09:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Got to agree. The original article, which I have read but can't find to link, is not the eulogy to Sachin that the 2 linked articles that refer to it would have you believe. The original source should be linked not the poor second hand sources we currently have. The original article used very specific non standard criteria and under those Sachin came out second (a LONG way) behind Bradman. Other criteria would produce very different results. In any case, it was ONE Wisden article. Many others have different claims. --LiamE 17:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We have also listed another Wisden article in the Criticism section. I am wondering as to why that (Criticism) is not debated like this, but achievements (of Sachin) are always debated, inspite of few failures, all of which are mentioned in this page Doctor BrunoTalk 18:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hyperbole

As per the revers and a nice suggestion of let's stick to facts not hyperbole, even if someone else said it) [6] by User:Stephen_Turner, I have removed few quotes. I am sure that it is in accordance with the previous edits of removing hyperboles. Doctor BrunoTalk 13:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article needs more of a concrete chronological account, rather than random anecdotes and generalistations. I'm trying to fixup User:Blnguyen/Rahul Dravid and Tendulkar will go the same way I hope. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Man of the Match Awards in ODI

Can some one update the Man of the Match Awards http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=1934;class=odiplayer;filter=basic;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;season=0;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;startdefault=1989-12-18;start=1989-12-18;enddefault=2006-08-19;end=2006-08-19;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduledovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;result=0;followon=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;viewtype=aro_awards;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

I can put my hands on this, as and when I get some time.

A thought: As there will be atleast 52 rows(plus the header row) in that table, would it not be a good idea to number it?

In other words, shall we have a dedicated column for numbering? So here goes my proposal for that table.

#	Date	Against	Venue
1	1990-91	Srilanka	Pune
2	1991-92	West Indies	Sharjah
50	March 16 2004	Pakistan	Rawalpindi
51	July 21 2004	Bangladesh	Sinhalese Sports Club Ground
52	September 14 2006	West Indies	Kuala Lumpur

- KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 23:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Done !!!

Hyperbole

I removed "golden arm" and "single-handedly" from teh bowling section. In particular in the "single-handed", the game in which you refer Doctorbruno, Sehwag was named MotM and there were other strong Indian contribs also.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. The single handed has been modified to another match. I am sure that every one agrees with the contribution in this match. Please don't ask a question as if no one else fielded in the match and whether he was the only person in the stadium.

By the way, I am not able to understand as to your edits regarding Golden Arm. It is a term used by reputed Cricket Writers and it was well quoted. I had given more than one citation for that also. Why was that removed. Any sensible explanation ????.

One explanation that is damn stupid is telling that "it may mislead those who don't know anything about cricket and they may think that he is a great bowler". Please don't give that explanation... PLEASE..... Rejecting a well known and well established fact with a hypothetical theory that a newbie may misunderstand seems very awkward. If you go like this, then when you say caught at mid wicket, some one new to cricket may think that the batsman was caught between the stumps and hence mid wicket violates NPOV etc. Similarly, a person who is new to cricket may think that Fine leg means Aiswarya Rai. If you think carefully, every (or most) term in cricket has another meaning outside cricket. Citing POV telling that those not knowing cricket my misunderstand is a very bad argument.

If you have any other opinion tell us. Or else, please revert yourself. As a respect for you, I am not reverting this edit (Golden Arm) myself. Doctor BrunoTalk 13:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading - it is a piece of hyperbole even if it is used by cricket writers. News articles in sport frequently user hyperbole (unlike news about war, religion, etc, etc,) else we would lace all these bios with words like "scintillating strokeplay" "savage cutting", "unbelievable destruction" etc, and secondly your comparison of fine leg to Aishwarya Rai is a joke, because we would say something like Irfan Pathan fields at fine leg, not some random bollywood actress out of context. Feel free to revert me. I am no sacred cow. Secondly, I'd prefer that words like "single-handedly" not be used at all as it is hyperbole - in the game you cited Tendulkar scored 45% of the runs and took 40% of the wickets, so wasn't a majority contributor in his own right. Also Jadeja scored 71 from 65, whilst Tendulkar scored 141 - so he scored twice as much as the next guy. Then, if you look at the 2001 Border Gavaskar series Harbhajan took 32 wickets while the next guy took 3 - do we say that "Harbhajan single-handedly won the BG series, doing much more than the rest of the bowlers who were very poor?" - No because Laxman also scored 281, Dravid 181 batting for a whole day in 45o heat on a pitch which was turning square with Warne deliberately bowling 3 feet outside leg stump and they were driving him out of the rough past mid-on all day, and when Steve Waugh went and and blocked off the leg side they went inside out through cover which is very dangerous to back away, expose the stumps, and hit across a ball which has turned 60 degrees. Point is that Tendulkar did 40-40% in bowling and batting and Harbhajan did 80-0 bowling batting and it is wrong to say that it was single-handed because if Dravid and Laxman didn't put on 376 in what some think as one of the greatest epic batting performances of the modern era, then Harbhajan would have had no target to defned on day 5. The same applies to Tendulkar - if he had stupid battting partners like me, then he would have made 10 not out and carried his bat before his partners got out. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No Original research

If you are giving a new meaning to a term used by reputed cricket writers, I am afraid that it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. (Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.)

And single-handedly does not mean that you have to bat without partners or bowl without fielders. You should note that terms used in cricket have their own meanings. Removing certain terms (especially terms which are crediting Sachin here and terms which are criticising other players at their pages) is not good for Wikipedia.

inexorably - what about this term

It the term is used by Cricket writers, we have to use that. As clearly stated this is not a place for OUR NEW IDEAS and dissecting what one term means. Doctor BrunoTalk 01:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please settle this here, before changing that in teh Main Article. Can you DO ORIGINAL RESEARCH OVER HERE Doctor BrunoTalk 01:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

An example of Unimportant Record

Recently there has been a discussion regarding important records in cricket and useless records. One example of a useless record is

1. He has the record for least number of innings required to score 1000 runs against West Indies by an Indian (26)

• The only person who has got it in less innings in international cricket is Jacques Kallis (25)

Note that it is just the second least not even the least (and that too against only ONE country). So technically we have 100 players with equal or better records

1. Least number of innings to score 1000 against West Indies
2. Second to Least number of innings to score 1000 against West Indies
3. Least number of innings to score 1000 against Australia
4. Second to Least number of innings to score 1000 against Australia
5. Least number of innings to score 1000 against UAE
6. Second to Least number of innings to score 1000 against UAE

On the other hand, records like highest score in One Innings (Lara), Highest Career Average (Bradman), Highest Number of Centuries, Highest Number of Career Runs etc are important records  Doctor Bruno Talk 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Inexorable (see wiktionary) is the same as inevitable - so I'm wrote in the article that Tendulkar's DLF performance shows that he is not ineveietably and monotonically declining, totally washed up as some would predict. I never said that Tendulkar's records were "useless" - you decided to insert POV by saying that his records included the "most important" - the reason I objected is people disagree on what is the most important record. Certainly some of the ones that you cited from the DRavid article are useless and I intend to not keep them once User:Blnguyen/Rahul Dravid, although your edit summaries and talk page arguments seem to imply that you suspect that I am Dravid's moutpiece or something. I would not say that "most runs and centuries" is "most important", as that implies that a person who scores less is not so good - eg, Bradman only scored 6994 runs as there were less matches in the old days - does that mean he is worse than Justin Langer? Do you have any other OR to be pointed out? Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have already mentioned the Highest Average as the important record. It is generally accepted that the key batting records are highest score in One Innings, Highest Career Average, Highest Number of Centuries, Highest Number of Career Runs and Key Bowling records are Highest Career Wickets, Best Innings performance, Best Match performance, Best Average and Best Strike Rate. I was just highlighting this fact. Of course, you are not Dravid's marketing agent. (And I am not Sachin's mouthpiece). I just want to treat all cricketers as equal.  Doctor Bruno Talk 02:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)